Rath v. Network Marketing, L.C., 698 So. 2d 941

PER CURIAM.

Of appellant’s arguments, the only one with merit is that the contempt order may not stand since the September 17, 1996 temporary injunction fails to identify the clinical study and its supporting documentation with adequate specificity to support a contempt order. See Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hettinger v. McMahon, 164 So.2d 553, 555 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). The trial court was authorized to require production of the documents by November 5, 1996. We strike only that portion of the October 23, 1996 order finding appellants in contempt.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

POLEN, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Rath v. Network Marketing, L.C.

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Sep 17, 1997

Citations: 698 So. 2d 941; 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10573; 1997 WL 577590; No. 96-3739

Docket Number: No. 96-3739

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.